







^oK 







'^o' 



1? -^ >A 




'oK 










■a? -r^ 









o^^ 
^ ^^^ 



U,^"^ 

^\^ 



> V 



-^^ 



> 




- . . ^ .0^ o) 'o . . - A. <^ , . , , 






Hq 








>s 







.^ 



4q<. 



.V 




A 






<^ 







V 





,-^ 



.^ 



0- 










^ 



;^ 






V 







^ 



.<A 



^'^ 






,^^ 



•?*_ 



o 





^ 



V 













,•*" 



V 



,0 



f^ 



The Case Plainly 
Stated 



By H: F. RING 




JOSEPH PELS FUND EDITION 



lXj- ^' 



. 1329 



.\i^5^\^ 



PRE"FATORY NOTE 

This address originally was delivered to the United Labor Organiza- 
tion of Houston, Texas, in 1887. It appeared in full the next morning 
in the Houston Daily Post, and afterwards in The Standard, published 
at that time in New York by Henry George. Mr. George then issued 
it in tract form, giving it the name of "The Case Plainly Stated." 
Many editions of it have since been published from time to time in this 
country and in Europe and Australia, and it is generally regarded as 
one of the clearest brief statements extant of the philosophy of land 
value taxation as taught by Henry George in his famous "Progress 
and Poverty," 



The Case Plainly Stated. 

By H. F. RING. 



MR. CHAIRMAN :— The land question is simply a 
question as to how the use of the bounties of 
nature shall be best regulated and controlled. By 
bounties of nature I mean the coal beds, the mineral 
deposits, the land — all those natural elements which were 
not created by human industry, but which Nature has 
freely and abundantly provided for the use and enjoy- 
ment of all the children of men ; and I propose to show 
how the right of capital and. labor to use these natural 
elements should be regulated by the government*, so as 
most to conduce to the happiness and well-being of 
mankind. 

I am a Single Taxer, and a discussion of the land 
question by me can be nothing more than a mere attempt 
to expound the teachings of that great master of the 
subject, Henry George. 

George, at the outset, calls attention to the marvelous 
improvements in the arts and sciences, the discoveries, 



* The word "government" as used in this presentation of the Single Tax 
refers to the tax levying power as vested, not alone in the federal, But also 
and even primarily in the state, county, and municipal governments. 

It is probable that a complete application of the Single Tax will be reached 
through its gradual adoption at first in cities, counties and states, before it is 
substituted for tariff and internal revenue taxation. 

1 



2 The Case Plainly Stated. 

inventions, and labor-saving machines which, within the 
past 100 years, have so immensely increased the pro- 
ductive powers of the human race. Is it not a moderate 
estimate to assume that on an average the labor of one 
man today, with all these labor-saving inventions, will 
produce as much of the comforts and luxuries of life 
as the labors of four men would a hundred years ago? 
And does it not follow that the average workman of today 
creates, by each day's labor, four times as much wealth as 
the average workman did a hundred years ago ? George 
teaches that if the workman of today, on an average, cre- 
ates four times as much wealth as the workman of a 
hundred years ago, then the services of this workman of 
today are four times as valuable to society; then why 
should not his wages of right be four times as great ? 
Why should he not be four times as independent? Why 
should it not be four times as easy for him to make a 
living and support his family in comfort and decency? 

Will any one presume to assert that this is in fact the 
case? On the contrary, is it not just about as hard for 
the poor man to make a living today as it ever was ? 
Does he not dread the loss of a position today just as » 
much as he ever did? George asserts that labor-saving 
machinery really ought to lessen the burdens of labor, 
to make it easier for the laborer to live, and in fact, to 
lighten his toil. But alas, from some apparently mys- 
terious cause, — a cause which many comfortably well-to- 
do people insist is one of the unfathomable mysteries of 
Divine Providence, — what George claims should rightly 
result from inventions does not result from them. And 
still we are all the time making new discoveries, and 
year by year increasing, by means of new inventions, 
the productive powers of working men; yet, with the 
increase of population, the lot of those who produce all 
this wealth seems to be becoming more precarious, less 
independent and more and more wretched. 

Who denies that under the present social system, 
wages tend to fall irresistibly to the point at which the 
wage-workers can barely subsist ? This is called the 



The Case Plainly Stated. 3 

iron law of wages, and all the strikes conceivable can 
only temporarily, and but fitfully, arrest this steady ten- 
dency. For so long as unemployed men compete for em- 
ployment against the employed, wages cannot permanent- 
ly advance. The worker may create quadruple the 
wealth, but he is not permitted to retain any more of it 
as his share. 

WHO GETS THE WEALTH? 

Now, where does this wealth go — this wealth which 
we now produce so much more easily and in such vastly 
greater quantities than ever before ? What becomes of it ? 
Who gets it? Why is it that in this age of wealth-pro- 
ducing and labor-saving machinery, poverty as abject and 
hideous as ever before seen in the history of the world 
abounds and increases in our midst? What is the cause 
of the so-called iron law of wages? Henry George has 
discovered it. He has pointed it out, and he has shown 
us the remedy. He has demonstrated beyond a doubt or 
question that it does not result as a fatal necessity from 
the nature of things, but that it is a result of violation of 
natural law, of a refusal on the part of society to recog- 
nize the inalienable right of every citizen of access to the 
bounties of nature within the territory of his country on 
equal terms with every other citizen of that country. 

Let me now give you a short lesson in the elements of 
this new political economy. 

Three factors enter into the creation of every con- 
ceivable kind of wealth. By wealth we mean any ma- 
terial thing produced by human industry which gratifies 
human desires. These factors are land, labor and capi- 
tal. Wealth in a civilized community is produced only by 
means of a union or partnership between land, labor and 
capital. Labor does the work, capital loans the tools, 
and land furnishes the natural elements on which, and 
out of which all material things resulting from human 
industry are created. In speaking of land in the new 
political economy we never include improvements or 



4 The Case Plainly Stated, 

anything which is the result of human toil. We simply- 
mean the opportunities which land and the elements 
within it afford for the employment of capital and labor 
— we mean the raw elements as they lie on or in the 
bosom of the eartli, untouched by the hand of man. 

Now, as before remarked, the product of land, labor 
and capital is wealth, and after it is produced, it is di- 
vided among these factors entering into its composition. 
A certain portion of it, called rent, goes to land, either 
directly in the form of rent or in the form of interest 
on the selling price of the land or of the coal bed, or 
whatever it is ; another portion of it, called profit or in- 
terest, goes to capital for the use of tools which capital 
has furnished, and the balance left, after land has been 
paid rent and capital has been paid interest or profits, 
goes to labor as wages for the work which labor has 
done, including the labor of superintendence. 

MEANING OF RENT. 

Now what does rent signify as used here? Rent is 
the price paid for the privilege of access to the raw ma- 
terial — for the mere privilege of getting hold of something 
not created by man, on which and out of which labor and 
capital can produce wealth. This rent may be paid peri- 
odically, or may be paid in a lump in the form of pur- 
chase money. In either case the result will be the same. 
Is it not clear that in the division of wealth after it has 
been produced by this partnership between land, labor 
and capital, the more land gets for rent the less there 
will be left for capital and labor ? Is it not quite as plain 
as A B C that the more it costs capital and labor to get 
hold of these natural elements, the coal beds, the mines, 
the water fronts, the land — the gifts of nature which a 
kind providence has provided for the equal use and en- 
joyment of all — the less there will be for labor and capi- 
tal to divide between them? 

In the new political economy we must never confuse 
land v/ith capital. One is never the synonym of the 



The Case Plainly Stated. 5 

other. Land, as before stated, is simply the natural oppor- 
tunity, exclusive of improvements or anything done to 
it by man. Capital is something that has been made by 
man, like a machine for instance, which is useful in the 
production of wealth. It is wealth used to produce more 
wealth. 

LABOR AND CAPITAL PARTNERS. 

But someone asks : Suppose the capitalist who is 
using the coal bed or using this natural opportunity, 
whatever it may be, is also owner of it. Where then does 
your partnership between land, labor and capital come 
in? We answer just the same as before. A sum equal 
to the interest on the market value of the coal bed (in- 
dependent of the machinery, excavation work, etc.) is in 
such cases a factor of rent. The owner, in addition to 
profit or interest on his capital, as before defined, must 
also take from the wealth produced a sum equal, approx- 
imately, to interest on the market value of the coal land, 
otherwise he would sell out and quit. It is evident that 
the more money the owner is obliged to invest in pur- 
chasing the coal bed, for instance, the greater must be 
the sum which he takes out of the wealth produced to 
cover interest on that investment, and hence such interest 
money is simply rent paid for the use of a natural ele- 
ment, for the privilege of access to one of the bounties 
of nature. Therefore, is it not equally plain in this case 
that the more paid for this privilege of use, the less will 
remain out of which labor can get wages? 

A few years ago we read in the newspapers of a 
great boom in the vicinity of Birmingham, Alabama. 
We were exultingly told that the lands containing coal 
beds and mineral deposits in northern Alabama had gone 
up in value from $75,000 to $50,000,000 in the space of 
six years. What does this signify? It means that when 
capital and labor shall attempt to utilize these coal beds 
and mineral deposits, when capital and labor shall unite 
together, the one to furnish the tools, the other the labor, 



6 The Case Plainly Stated. 

with which to produce wealth out of this raw material, 
then will a set of landlords step forward and block the 
enterprise with a demand for $50,000,000 for the mere 
right of access to these free gifts of nature, or in lieu 
of it the payment of $3,000,000 a year as tribute money, 
that being the interest of $50,000,000 at six per cent. 

There lie the coal beds and mineral deposits un- 
touched by man, fresh from the hands of the Creator, in- 
tended by Him, if He is the just, benevolent Being whom 
we have been taught to worship, for the equal use and en- 
joyment of all His children, and yet our laws say that 
capital and labor must pay a few forestallers $3,000,000 
a year for the privilege of applying the hand of industry 
to these elements. 

And after this blackmail has been paid, how much 
will there be left for the wages of labor? The answer 
is, just as little as labor can ordinarily subsist upon. 
Why? Because this monopolization of the gifts of nature 
going on, not only in northern Alabama, but everywhere 
else, enables capital to drive a hard bargain with labor. 
For this reason, and this alone, they can't deal with each 
other on equal vantage grounds. Suppose labor objects 
and says to capital : *T'll not accept the pittance you 
offer." Capital replies : "All right, go elsewhere." And 
so labor starts out to get work for himself, and what does 
he find? Here he is, living in a country capable of rais- 
ing food for ten times its present population, and he finds 
four-fifths of the land untilled or but partially culti- 
vated. He finds four-fifths of the coal beds and mineral 
deposits unused. He finds vacant land and unused lots 
on every side. He goes to New York City even and he 
finds there within its corporate limits almost one-third 
the area of that city vacant, unoccupied, and unused, al- 
though there are miles and miles of tenement houses, in 
which men and women and innocent children are packed 
and crowded like maggots, as though there wasn't ample 
room in the city for the comfortable housing of every 
human being in it. He finds unused natural elements 
all around him wherever he goes, sufficient to give em- 



The Case Plainly Stated. 7 

ployment and support in abundance to tens of millions 
of happy families. 

But now suppose labor attempts to make use of any 
of these unused natural opportunities ? Suppose he con- 
cludes to go to work for himself upon a piece of vacant 
land in the suburbs of a city, for instance, where labor 
could be applied to the greatest advantage. What hap- 
pens? An individual comes along and waves a title 
deed, and orders him ofif the premises. He finds that all 
these unused natural opportunities are owned by indi- 
viduals and claimed as private property. He finds him- 
self frustrated at every point. He finds that he can't 
go to work anywhere without paying blackmail to the 
owner of some natural element for the mere privilege 
of working and so he strikes back to northern Alabama 
and takes off his hat to Capital and bows very low and 
says : 'Tlease, sir, give me a bare living and I will be 
your slave." 

And that is about all that he does get, and that is all 
he ever will get under the present system of land owner- 
ship, though you may strike and boycott and potter about 
graduated land taxes, graduated income taxes, and grad- 
uated nonsense until doomsday. 

THE GREAT PARASITE. 

With advancing population the greater becomes the 
demand for natural opportunities and the higher the 
prices which can be extorted for the privilege of using 
them. As population increases, the town lots, the coal 
beds, the mineral deposits, the water fronts, the land, 
go up in value, and so goes up also the amount of trib- 
ute money which labor must pay for access to them, for 
the privilege of employment. The more of the products 
of industry which go for the payment of this constantly 
increasing tribute, the less and less will grow the share 
allowed the laborer and the more dependent and the 
more wretched will his lot become. 



8 The Case Plainly Stated. 

Here in Houston today, suppose Enterprise has $50,- 
000 to invest in the paper mill business, a sum barely suf- 
ficient to put up the building, buy the machinery and 
carry stock. He finds a beautiful site for his mill on the 
banks of the bayou. It is a vacant lot. The hand of 
man has never been applied to it, and it stands there now 
just as it stood when the Indian roamed over the site of 
this city. The owner of that block, however, thinks he 
can make Enterprise pay him $20,000 for the privilege 
of giving employment to labor on this natural oppor- 
tunity — this piece of ground. That is the price, and if 
he can't get it today he will goX it when the city grows 
a little larger. But Enterprise says to him: *T have 
only $50,000 capital, all of which I shall need in my 
business." The land owner answers it is not his lookout, 
and so Enterprise turns away checkened and baffled, and 
the mill is not built. 

CAUSE OF DULL TIMES. 

And so it is everywhere. Wherever we find a portion 
of the vacant surface of the earth which could be utilized 
by capital and labor, and which affords an opportunity 
for human toil and enterprise, there we find a human 
vampire with a paper title in his hand warning off labor ; 
and that vampire must always be placated by the pay- 
ment of blackmail before the wheels of industry can be- 
gin to turn. 

Need we wonder that these wheels turn slowly, and 
that they are always getting out of gear ; that we are al- 
ways talking about dull times; that men are always out 
of employment and always hunting for work, regarding 
it as a favor even to be allowed to work; that we are 
all the time growing too much cotton, when millions of 
human beings have only one shirt to their names; that 
we are producing too much food, when half the popula- 
lation of the world is insufficiently fed; that carpenters 
are out of work, when half the people are not comfort- 
ably housed; shoemakers wanting work and millions 



The Case Plainly Stated, 9 

needing shoes? How could it be otherwise, when labor 
is compelled to beg for work in the midst of limitless 
unused opportunities for work, on which opportunities, 
however, sit these human vampires, these dogs in the 
manger, waving labor back with their paper title deeds? 

AN ILLUSTRATION. 

Now let us go back for a moment to that partnership 
between land, labor and capital. For illustration, sup- 
pose the wealth produced by the partnership to be created 
by the application of capital and labor to those coal beds 
and mineral deposits in northern Alabama, valued, as we 
have seen, at $50,000,000. In the division of wealth 
produced we have shown how, say six per cent of this 
$50,000,000, or $3,000,000, must go to land as rent. Or, 
in other words, $3,000,000 a year must be paid to land 
owners directly as rent or interest on purchase money 
for the bare privilege of utilizing these gifts of nature. 
Now, in the division of wealth produced, why is labor 
entitled to any portion of it? Clearly because labor's 
industry has contributed to its creation. Why is capital 
entitled to any part of it? Because capital has furnished 
labor with tools with which to develop the mineral de- 
posits. The capitalist who owns the tools can trace his 
title back to the creator of them, to some individual or 
set of individuals whose industry produced them and 
from whom he purchased or inherited them. The title, 
then, of both labor and capital to a portion of the wealth 
produced from these mineral deposits originates in hu- 
man industry, and it is a sacred title. Now then, why 
should the land owner get any portion of this wealth, 
to produce which capital has supplied the tools and labor 
has done the work ? This owner claims the right of mak- 
ing capital and labor pay him interest on $50,000,000, or 
$3,000,000 a year, for the mere privilege of access to this 
raw coal and raw ore. Ought we not to scrutinize most 
carefully his right to extort this immense tribute? And 
if he can show no natural and moral right to claim it, 



lo The Case Plainly Stated. 

does not society countenance the robbery of labor in per- 
mitting him to do so ? Where does his title originate ? 

We find that six or seven years ago he paid someone 
who claimed to own the land in which these mineral de- 
posits are found $750,000 for the raw natural element for 
which he now demands $50,000,000. Was this additional 
value of $49,250,000 in six years produced by his in- 
dustry? Was it produced by the industry of any previ- 
ous owner of these natural elements? Did it cost $49,- 
250,000 to discover these mineral deposits? We trace 
back his title a little further, and we find that perhaps a 
hundred years ago it originated in a grant to John Jones 
from the government — that is to say, the people who in- 
habited this country a hundred years ago and who con- 
stituted the government said : "We will divide the land 
and we will give John Jones this particular tract for his 
private property." 

But did these people create that land and the coal 
and iron in it ? Can it be shown that they had any better 
right to it from the Almighty Creator than the people 
of this generation have? Was the earth intended by 
the Heavenly Father for one generation to dispose of 
forever, or as an abiding place for all generations ? Was 
Thomas Jefferson right or wrong when he wrote : "The 
earth belongs in usufruct to the living; the dead have no 
right or power over it?" By what authority could the 
people living here a hundred years ago, long since dead 
and gone, confer upon John Jones, also dead and gone, 
a right which would enable John Smith today, by trac- 
ing a paper chain of titles from him, to extort from 
capital and labor a tribute of $3,000,000 a year for the 
bare privilege of getting to tliat coal and iron and making 
it useful to mankind? 

Who dares to blaspheme the name of the Almighty 
Ruler of the universe by saying that the coal and iron 
were not intended by Him for the equal use and the en- 
joyment of all His children — the humblest babe born 
today in a garret equally with a child of the proudest 
duke who ever lived? 



The Case Plainly Stated, ii 

MAN IS A LAND ANIMAL. 

Is not man a land animal? Can he live without land? 
Can he any more rightfully be deprived of access to land 
than he can rightfully be deprived of life itself? Can 
he any more rightfully be compelled to yield up to a fore- 
staller, a mere owner of land, a portion of the fruit of 
his industry for the privilege of getting hold of the raw 
material elements than he can rightfully be compelled 
as a slave to yield up to a master a portion of the fruits 
of his industry? To compel him to do so is as much a 
robbery of labor in one case as in the other. Why then 
is not the humblest babe that God sends into this world 
naturally and by inalienable right entitled to access to 
land on equal terms with all his fellow human beings ? 

ORIGIN OF PROPERTY RIGHT. 

Mind, when we say access to land we do not include 
access to improvements on land, or access to anything 
produced by human industry, a title to which can be 
shown originating in human toil ; we simply mean access 
upon equal terms to the free bounties of nature as they 
lie upon the kind bosom of mother earth, untouched and 
undisturbed by the hand of man. What I produce by 
my industry is mine. What I obtain by exchanging the 
products of my industry for the products of another's 
industry is mine. What my father or my grandfather 
produced by his industry was his, and if he has given it 
to me it is mine. 

In all these cases human industry is the origin of 
property right, and property rights originating in human 
industry must be held sacred, else there would be no in- 
centive to human effort. Do not the values produced by 
the individual belong to the individual producing them? 
Do not the values produced by the community belong to 
the community producing them? Is there anything 
wrong, immoral or communistic in this ideal ? And yet 
this is the sum and substance of the Henry George phi- 
losophy. 



12 The Case Plainly Stated. 

Take the case of the vacant block on the bank of the 
bayou which Enterprise wanted for a paper mill and 
could not get. Fifty years ago it was worthless. Now 
labor must pay a tribute of over $20,000 to the so-called 
owner for the privilege of using it. Whose industry has 
put $20,000 of value on that piece of vacant ground? 
Not the industry of the present owner, nor the industry 
of any former owner, because no man has ever done a 
stroke of work upon it. That value of $20,000 has been 
placed upon the land by the common energy and enter- 
prise of the entire community. Since the community has 
produced that land value why does it not belong to the 
community? Why has not the community the same 
rights to the value it creates as the individual has to 
the values which he individually creates ? 

THE REMEDY. 

How shall this derangement of the wheels of industry, 
this blackmail upon enterprise, this robbery of labor, this 
eager and fatal competition among laborers for employ- 
ment, this slavish fear of the loss of a situation in the 
midst of abundant unused opportunities for employment 
— how shall this curse which our present land system has 
fastened upon the productive industry of the country, be 
removed? Simply by doing justice; by being honest; by 
recognizing in our laws one of the inalienable rights of 
man; by recognizing in every human being, in every 
generation, the present as well as the past, an inalienable 
right of access to the bounties of nature on equal terms 
with every other human being. 

How shall this right of access on equal terms be se- 
cured? Simply by making every individual who claims 
a right to the exclusive possession of a tract of land pay 
in the form of a tax approximately what the use of that 
tract of land is worth, exclusive of all improvements 
on it or anything done to it by the hand of man, and 
by abolishing every other form of taxation. Take the 
rent of land for public use instead of taxes. 



The Case Plainly Stated. 13 

WILL SIMPLIFY GOVERNMENT. 

Some one asks : "Will not this proposed change 
vastly increase the functions of government and im- 
mensely add to the number of government employees?" 
I reply no. On the contrary, at least two-thirds of the 
present army of revenue collectors and tax gatherers 
will be dispensed with, and the remaining one-third will 
collect this single tax on land values at one-third the ex- 
pense now incurred in the collection of national, state, 
county, and municipal taxes. 

Another inquirer asks : "Will not the new system 
offer abundant opportunities for corruption and partiality 
in fixing the amount of this tax annually to be paid for 
the exclusive use of a piece of land? And how do you 
propose the amount of the tax shall be determined?" 
It will be determined by the same law of demand and 
supply which now determines the amount of tax under 
the present system. The single tax will be fixed by the 
same machinery of an assessor and a board of equaliza- 
tion which fixes it now. For instance, under this system 
a piece of property on Main street rents for $5,000 a 
year. Interest at the prevailing rate on the building alone, 
added to the annual cost of insurance, repairs and care- 
taking, and a sum sufficient to provide a sinking fund for 
renewals amounted to, say $3,000 a year. The land- 
lord is then collecting the difference between $3,000 and 
$5,000, or $3,000 for the use of this naked earth. 
That is to say, he is collecting $2,000 a year for the use 
of something never created by man, to which all are by 
natural right equally entitled, and which owes its rental 
value of $2,000 a year exclusively to the common enter- 
prise and energy of the entire community. 

This is the sum which, under Henry George's system, 
would be turned over to the government in the form of a 
tax for the common benefit of the community who col- 
lectively have made the use of this land worth $2,000 
a year. 



14 The Case Plainly Stated. 

Here an interested friend anxiously inquires: "But 
'if the landlord has to pay this tax of $2,000 a year for the 
use of the land, will he not take it out of the tenant by 
raising his rent to $7,000?" No, for the landlord's 
charges now all he can compel the tenant to pay. Sup- 
pose he tries to. Suppose he says to his tenant: "You 
must now pay me $7,000 a year." What happens ? Just 
what happens every day now. If the tenant can do no 
better he pays the increase. But now, mark you, when 
the landlord goes to pay his tax what happens then ? Why 
the board of equalization says to him, you have received 
$7,000 a year rent for the use of improvements worth 
only $3,000 a year. You are therefore collecting $4,000 a 
year instead of $2,000 for the use of the naked lot, and 
you will therefore pay the city or state $4,000 a year for 
the privilege of the exclusive use of the ground instead 
of $2,000 a year as heretofore. Now what has the land- 
lord made by jumping up the rent? Nothing. What 
would be made by thus jumping up the rents under the 
present system? Everything. Under which system 
would landlords be more apt to force up rents ? 

DETERMINING THE TAX. 

Another way by which the board of equalization 
under the George system would determine the amount of 
tax to be paid for the privilege of the exclusive posses- 
sion of a tract of land, and which would also compel 
landlords to collect from their tenants and turn over 
to the government in the form of a tax the full 
value of the use of the land, would be from observation 
of the prices which real estate brought in the market. 
But note, at this point some smart fellow jumps up — and 
he is likely enough to be a newspaper editor — and vehe- 
mently protests, saying: "Why, sir, the taxation of 
ground values plan does not propose to allow any ex- 
clusive ownership of land. It demands that the govern- 
ment own it all and rent it out or divide it up into 60,- 
000,000 or 70,000,000 Httle bits, or do something of that 



The Case Plainly Stated. 15 

kind with it, and here you are talking about lands being 
bought and sold under the Henry George system. Why, 
man alive, you don't know what that system is !" 

Now, Mr. Editor, or Mr. Who-ever-you-are, let me 
say to you that in your ignorance, or in your indifference 
to the sufferings of your fellowmen, or in your desire 
to pander to the greed of monopoly, or to the timidity 
of capital, you may say what you please; you may mis- 
represent as much as you please for the purpose of 
bringing odium and contempt upon the cause; you may 
call it what you please — state ownership, state landlord- 
ism, ownership in common, communism, nihilism, anarch- 
ism or anything else; but the fact, nevertheless, remains 
that, under the just and righteous land system which 
we are trying to explain, the land will continue to be 
bought and sold under the same form of paper deeds, 
precisely as it is bought and sold today. It will con- 
tinue in precisely the same way to pass to devisees by will 
and to heirs by law of descent and distribution. The 
right of control, of exclusive possession and dominion 
over a piece of land and of the free and exclusive en- 
joyment of all improvements on it, w411 in no way be 
abridged or disturbed. When you buy a lot on Main 
street today worth $10,000 with a building on it worth 
$10,000 more, your deed recites a consideration of 
$20,000. Now when you buy this same property under 
the George system, the only difference in the whole 
transaction will be that your deed for it — assuming that 
the price accords with the market value prevailing at the 
time of your purchase — will recite a consideration of 
only $10,000, and $10,000 is all that you will then pay for 
the property. You will pay nothing for the land. After 
you have bought the property you will pay yearly in 
the form of a tax to the government, approximately the 
full market value of the (yearly) use of it — which will 
amount to the annual rental value of the land, and as the 
man from whom you purchased had to pay the govern- 
ment the same annual rental value, you will consequently 



1 6 The Case Plainly Stated, 

pay nothing, or approximately nothing''', to him for the 
land itself when you purchase the property. You thus 
save an investment of $10,000 in dirt; instead of such in- 
vestment you will pay for the common benefit of the 
community, including yourself, what the privilege of the 
exclusive use of that spot of earth is worth — nothing 
more, nothing less — and that is simply what you ought 
to pay. The $10,000, which, under the present system, 
you are compelled to bury in a bit of earth, you will 
have left you with which to increase your business ; and 
if you do increase your business with it, and add another 
story to your building, no tax gatherer will come around 
and impose an additional fine upon you for doing some- 
tliing with your money which gives employment to labor. 

NO PROPERTY IN LAND. 

Thus, under the single tax system^ land would be sold 
and would change hands as it does now, but it would 
only bring in the market approximately the value of the 
improvements on it. If land in any locality should get 
to selling for considerably more than the value of the 
improvements on it, this would be a certain indication 
that the parties using the natural elements in that neigh- 
borhood were not paying for the benefit of all the people 
what the use of the same was worth, and so a board of 
equalization would put the tax up. As population in- 
creases the value of the use of land increases, and with 
it, under the George system, the revenue from this tax 
on land values will increase, and thus the entire people 
who collectively produce this increasing value will get 
the benefit of the values collectively produced by them. 
As it is now, the increase in the value of land, which 
amounts to several billions annually in the United States, 
four-fifths of which is increase in the value of city and 



* There will, no doubt, be instances where the desire of an individual to 
get and retain possession of a certain piece of property, will cause him to 
offer a bonus over and above the market value of the improvements. 



The Case Plainly Stated, 17 

town lots and mineral deposits, goes to a comparatively 
small number of individuals who do no more to produce 
these values than any other members of the community. 

TAXATION ABOLISHED. 

Another doubter puts this objection: Under the 
George system you would make the owner of a lot on 
Main street, with an improvement on it worth $10,000, 
pay as much tax as the owner of a similar lot adjoining, 
having a building on it worth $50,000. What justice is 
there in that? 

Let us see. Take away the improvements and these 
two lots are of the same value — that is to say, the value 
of the use of both lots for ordinary business purposes is 
the same. Suppose it is $300 a year. Now, the man with 
the $50,000 improvement collects from his tenant ten per 
cent on his $50,000, or $5,000. He also collects $300, 
the value of the use of the lot, making in all $5,300. The 
man with the $10,000 improvement also collects ten per 
cent upon the valuation of his improvement from his 
tenant, of $1,000. He, too, collects $300 in addition 
for the use of the lot, making in all $1,300. Now after 
both have paid the government $300 apiece for the privi- 
lege of the exclusive use of these lots, each will have 
left ten per cent upon the capital invested, and why 
should one be entitled to any greater per cent upon the 
capital invested than the other? 

The fact is, that under this system there will be no 
such thing as taxes. Taxation, as we now understand it, 
will be abolished. The revenue derived by the govern- 
ment from requiring all who use a natural opportunity 
to pay into the common treasury what the use of that op- 
portunity is worth, if it is worth anything at all, will be 
more than sufficient to enable the government to dispense 
with every species of taxation. As it is now, when you 
pay your taxes, you are simply robbed of a portion of the 
fruits of your industry, for which you do not get, di- 
rectly, any equivalent. Under the proposed system, 



1 8 The Case Plainly Stated, 

when you pay your single tax on land values you will 
get directly a full equivalent for every dollar paid. You 
will get the privilege of the exclusive use of a tract of 
land for what that privilege is worth, 

ACCESS TO UNUSED LAND. 

If this system were adopted what would become of 
the vacant lots and lands, the unused coal beds and 
mineral deposits, the unoccupied water fronts and water 
privileges over which human vampires now stand guard, 
retarding enterprise and driving off labor? They would 
become absolutely free. No one could afford to hold 
them and pay taxes on them. The vampires would turn 
them loose. Land speculators and land sharks, instead 
of trying to grow rich by forestalling labor and capital 
and thus preying like devouring beasts on their fellow- 
men, would turn their talents to better account. Wher- 
ever labor could find an unused lot or coal bed or mineral 
deposit or unused tract of land, there labor could go to 
work and employ itself without being required to invest 
a dollar in the purchase of a right of access to the na- 
tural element, without being compelled to first make terms 
with a dog in the manger claiming it as private property 
and holding it for speculative purposes. 

If that vacant natural opportunity were situated near 
a center of population, or were of a character to bestow 
peculiar money-making advantages upon the persons 
using it, this advantage would create a demand for it, 
and this demand would regulate in the manner already 
pointed out the amount which labor and capital would 
pay for the ttse of it, in the form of a tax for the con- 
mon benefit of all. If that vacant opportunity, for in- 
instance, were a tract of land four or five miles from 
this city, it would have few advantages to make the 
use of it at present peculiarly valuable. Why ? Because 
there is so much vacant land of the same character near 
it, the use of which is equally valuable, that no one 
would give a bonus, as it were, for the use of that par- 



The Case Plainly Stated. 19 

ticular tract. Labor would, therefore, at first get the use 
of that land for nothing. It would have no taxable 
value at all until all the other vacant land similarly situ- 
ated was put into use. Under this most just and equit- 
able system the taxable values of land would be confined 
almost exclusively to the cities and towns and the coal 
and mineral deposits. Where people congregate, there 
land has value. In New York City alone, capital and 
labor today pay to a few thousand land owners, in ground 
rent alone, exclusive of rent paid on improvements, for 
the bare privilege of living and doing business, tribute 
money amounting to hundreds of millions annually, a 
sum almost equal to the expense of carrying on the 
government of the United States. It is in these great 
centers of trade and commerce that land has its greatest 
value; it is here that land values are mostly found and 
from these centers nine-tenths of the revenue of the gov- 
ernment from this tax on land values would be derived. 

FARMERS WOULD BE BENEFITED. 

If the George plan were suddenly put in force today, 
not only would all farmers be relieved from direct and 
indirect taxation, not only would farmers participate in 
common with all others in the universal and uninter- 
rupted prosperity which would result from removing the 
obstructions which needlessly hamper and clog enter- 
prise, but probably three-fourths of the working farmers 
in this country would pay no land tax at all. Why? Be- 
cause with so much vacant or but partially cultivated 
land as there is here today three-fourths of the farmers 
would have no taxable value at all ; and all who are 
counting on the farmers of America being so foolish as 
not to see how they will be as much benefited by a just 
and righteous land system as any other class will cer- 
tainly be disappointed. 



20 The Case Plainly Stated. 

EFFECT ON FARMS. 

"Yes," says our farmer friend, "but you propose to 
confiscate the farmer's land." Let's see about that. You 
are a farmer owning say a hundred-acre farm, situated 
Hke a majority of farms, in a neighborhood where for 
every acre of land in cultivation there are two or more 
acres unimproved or but partially improved. Your farm 
is worth under the present system, say $2,000. A hun- 
dred acres of this unimproved land adjoining it of the 
same quality is held by some speculator at $500. Your 
tax on your hundred-acre farm is $10 a year, the specula- 
tor's tax on the hundred acres of land adjoining of equal 
value, exclusive of improvements, is $2.50 a year — one- 
fourth as much as yours. You give employment to la- 
bor on your land, and thereby add to the prosperity of 
the community. The speculator excludes labor from 
employment on his land, and thereby retards the pros- 
perity of the community. Why should you be taxed any 
more for using your hundred-acre tract, and giving em- 
ployment to labor on it, than the speculator is taxed for 
holding in idleness a tract of equal value and preventing 
labor from using it ? Why should not the speculator pay 
at least as much tax for the privilege of excluding labor 
from his tract as you have to pay for the privilege of 
employing labor on yours? Have you hurt anyone by 
turning up the wild sod and building fences and houses 
and putting $1,500 worth of improvements on your land? 
If not, why should you be fined for it by having your 
taxes increased? 

Where our plan is adopted you will have no taxes 
at all to pay until this vacant land around your farm is 
put into use. Until then no land value could attach to 
your farm, and the tax which, with increasing population, 
you would ultimately be required to pay, would seldom 
equal and rarely, if ever, exceed that which farmers now 
pay on the improvement valuation. Assuming that you 
spend say $600 a year on your family, then under the 
present system your taxes, direct and indirect, and the toll 



The Case Plainly Stated. 21 

which the merchants take for collectmg indirect taxes, 
amount to at least $100 a year. You may not know it, 
because an indirect tax always fools a fellow paying it. 
You will be relieved from all these taxes, but best of all, 
men who are now idle and who can't buy what you raise 
will all be at work, and not only that, but their wages 
will be high enough to pay good prices for what you raise. 
It is true that under the new system you could only 
sell your place for $1,500. Still, with this same $1,500 
you could buy just as good a place from some one else. 
The purchasing power of your farm, when it comes to 
buying another farm, would not have been reduced. Do 
not your interests as producer or a laborer vastly exceed 
your interests as a land owner? 

LANDLORDISM AND GOVERNMENT 

Now, coming back to the elements of the new political 
economy, some one says : "What difference does it make 
to the workmen whether labor and capital pay this 
ground rent to the individual or to the government, since, 
according to your theory, it must be paid all the same?" 
In the first place, if it is paid to the individual none of 
it ever comes back to labor and capital unless value re- 
ceived is paid for it; so far as labor and capital are 
concerned, it might about as well be cast into the sea. 
But when it is paid to the government in the form of a 
tax on land values it does come back to labor and capital 
again in the form of relief from every species of taxa- 
tion, direct and indirect. 

Again, the amount that Enterprise would pay the 
government for the privilege of access to the natural ele- 
ments would be less under the single tax than is now 
paid individuals for this privilege. Under the land value 
tax the prices could not be advanced by monopolization 
of these elements, as is being done now. 

But best of all, and by far the most glorious result 
that will flow from the establishment of a just and 
righteous land system, is that it will enable tlie wealth 



22 The Case Plainly Stated. 

creator to stand erect, presenting to capital an unterri- 
iied front. 

Return for a moment to the coal beds of northern 
Alabama and imagine the Henry George system adopted. 
Labor now again objects to the terms offered by capital, 
and again capital tells him to go. And again labor goes 
forth hunting for work. But how different he finds the 
aspect of things. He finds the same unused natural ele- 
ments, the same unused coal beds and mineral deposits, 
the vacant lots and lands, but he no longer finds a fellow- 
man sitting upon every vacant opportunity for work and 
waving him off. They have vanished. They have gone 
to work themselves. He finds every unused opportunity 
for labor, wherever it may be, absolutely free. Not a 
dollar of capital need be invested in buying a natural 
opportunity, in paying for the privilege of work. When 
labor went forth hunting work before, he not only had 
lo ask capital to pay for the tools, but also to pay, usu- 
ally a greater sum, to some forestaller, in addition, as 
blackmail, for the privilege of access to a natural ele- 
ment. 

This will all be changed. It won't take near as much 
capital to start enterprises as it did, or in other words, 
to give employment to labor. In fact, labor could then 
take even an axe and hoe and find plenty of vacant op- 
portunities on which he could make a living without 
having to bury himself in a wilderness to do it. All this 
makes him feel independent and enables him to bargain 
with capital for employment on equal vantage grounds. 

MONOPOLY IS PROFITABLE. 

Some time since a large manufacturing firm in Mas- 
sachusetts adopted the eight-hour system. After trying 
it a year they gave it up and went back to the ten-hour 
system. The general manager said they could only make 
five per cent profit on their investments by requiring 
only eight hours' work, and that unless they could make 
a bigger percentage than that, they would not be bothered 



The Case Plainly Stated. 23 

with the management of the business — they would put 
their money into town and city lots, because that species 
of property would certainly enhance in value as much as 
five per cent annually, and that, too, without any trouble 
to the owner, and so it is everywhere. Now, is it not 
absurd to expect to reduce the rate of profits with which 
capital will be content below this steady per cent of in- 
crease in the value of town and city lots, by any com- 
bination of labor, or by any legislation which falls short 
of restoring these land values to the people v/ho col- 
lectively create them? 

Suppose you have $10,000 today. The best and 
safest thing you can do with it is to invest it in town lots 
in or near some growing town. Ten years from today, 
unless the George theory becomes generally understood, 
the lots will be worth $20,000 and you will have drawn 
to yourself $10,000 worth of wealth for which you have 
given no equivalent. You will simply have robbed the 
labor of the country of $10,000. But now suppose 
ground values to be appropriated to the public use 
by taxation. What are you to do with your $10,000? 
You would not buy vacant lots now ; there is no specula- 
tion in them. The tax which you would have to pay for 
the privilege of excluding capital and labor from the 
opportunities for employment which vacant lots afford, 
would be too heavy for you. In fact, you couldn't even 
loan on land alone, because land alone will have no sell- 
ing value in the market. The result is, that unless you 
let your money lie idle and so lose interest on it, you will 
be compelled to invest it so as to give employment to 
labor. You must put it into buildings, into machinery, 
into manufactory stock, into farm implements, into some 
channel where it will be active and where it will afford 
employment to labor. 

Not only must you do this with your capital, but 
every other capitalist must do the same with his capital. 
Capitalist thus must bid against capitalist, since capital 
can only increase by calling labor to its aid and giving 
it employment. 



24 The Case Plainly Stated. 

Under the present system the rich can grow richer 
without calling in the aid of labor, without giving employ- 
ment to labor. They do so by buying space and monop- 
olizing land. 

Under the present system, as wealth accumulates, the 
wealthy seek to invest in land, to get control of natural 
elements, and get into a position from which to black- 
mail labor, thus becoming an obstacle in the way of the 
production of more wealth. 

Under the better system, however, wealth could not 
thus be made to set up an obstacle to the creation of more 
wealth, or, in other words, to the employment of labor. 
It can then only obtain a profit by investing in lines of 
enterprise which give employment to labor. 

Under which system will the demand for labor be 
greater? Under which will earnings be higher? 




<^'WciNH^>" 



I 



543 ^ 













^^0^ 




'oV 







"^^0^ 



C' 




o 



.0< 









4 o 



* -^J- ci» ^ ^ 






'^b V^' ^'(^^M^r^. ^^^ r^ ^.^"^^^^ ^^ C^^ -i^M^.r ^-^ 




'^0' 



"oK 




-^1 
4 < 








0^ \D ^7^7^,^ . 



^ 



^ 




<^^ 'o , A 








- t.-o< 








V\' 





o 
o 



.'Jv 



^oV^ 






.4 < 















o > 



j.°-^^ 








^°-'^, 





4 o 

: %.A^ id^M. v./ /^i^\ %,^^ .-: 






■n-o< 







A 




<i>' 












1-Jv 









• 'W'^NCHESTEf 
'NDIANA 








o " o 



t.- 0< 







^oV^ 



